Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
Ram Krishan Grover and Others – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8597 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 26925 OF 2011), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8598 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 28107 OF 2011), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8599 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 28371 OF 2011), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8600 OF 2011 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 28593 OF 2011), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8601 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 31284 OF 2011), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8602 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2091 OF 2012), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8603 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 34304 OF 2012), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8604 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 17458 OF 2013), AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8605 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 35980 OF 2013)
Decided On : 14-11-2019
(a) Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Section 89, 88, 87 - Punjab Reorganisation (Chandigarh) (Adaptation of Laws on State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1968 - Reference to State of Punjab in all existing law to be read as reference to Union Territory of Chandigarh - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was not part of “existing law” as Chandigarh was not an “urban area” within the Rent Act - Notification extending Rent Act to Chandigarh in 1972 struck down by High Court - Section 13-B, inserted in Rent Act by amendment 2001, extended to Union Territory of Chandigarh by notification by Central Government dated 09.10.2009 purportedly u/s 87, Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Extension of Amendment Act falling within ambit of conditional legislation, held valid. (Para 6, 7, 18)
(b) Interpretation of statute - Parliament laying down a clear and permissible policy of extension of laws - As an inevitable fallout the executive should be permitted to extend future amendments to the existing laws. (Para 19)
(c) Constitution of India - Article 254 - Repugnancy - Between a Central and a State Act - When there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between the two enactments - Central Legislation prevails - Entries in the three Lists permit incidental encroachment - Therefore, every attempt must be made to placate the conflict - Failing which, the Court should consider striking down the legislation as trespassing beyond its legitimate and legal confines. (Para 23)
(d) Constitution of India - Article 254 - Repugnancy - Pith and substance - A particular legislation having different dominant purpose but incidentally encroaching upon subject matter of another legislation - Does not give bring about repugnancy. (Para 24)
(e) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 - Repugnancy with Central legislation - Relatable to the relationship of landlord and tenant for housing and accommodation - Falls under Concurrent List - Merely because it touches upon the subject matter in respect of Non-Resident Indian landlords in the Rent Act, does not make the Amendment or the Rent Act ultra vires - Rent Act as amended by the Amendment Act and the Central legislations relating to citizenship, regulation of the right of nonresidents to own and acquire immovable property, cover different subject matters and serve different objects - No repugnancy between Rent Act and any Central enactment like Citizenship Act, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, etc. (Para 27)
(f) Constitution of India - Article 246(4) r/w Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Power to make laws in respect of a Union Territory vests with the Parliament under Article 246(4) - Power to extend laws to the Union Territory of Chandigarh vests with the Central Government under section 87 - Exercising power is permissible. (Para 28)
(g) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 18-A - Application for leave to defend - Controller to take up the matter on day-to-day basis until conclusion of hearing on the application - Ensures speedy, expeditious and effective decisions - No appeal or second appeal provided against eviction order - High Court, however, may call for records for satisfying itself about correctness of the order. (Para 33)
(h) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13-B - Bona fide need of NRI landlord - In-built checks - Ownership for five years before filing eviction suit - Only one suit in life time and in respect of only building permitted - Prohibition on sale or lease of the premises for five years after eviction - All these are required to be proved - Landlord liable to punishment on breach of conditions - Ensuring that tenant is evicted only for bona fide need of landlord. (Para 35, 36)
(i) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13-B - One building - Does not mean tenancies - Building means building irrespective of number of tenancies therein. (Para 37)
(j) Section 13-B - Classification of NRI landlord as separate category - Right to claim eviction for bona fide need by summary procedure to Non- Resident Indians u/s 18-A - Not unfettered - Subject to and on the satisfaction of statutory conditions incorporating a check on frivolous evictions - Similar rights also given to government servants, members of armed forces, the retired or soon to retire employees of the Central and the State Governments, widows, etc. - The pre-conditions and post possession restrictions suggest that Section 13-B serves a specific policy objective to ensure the right of Non-Resident Indians to occupy their property, after “returning” to their country - Section 13-B cannot be treated as an arbitrary classification. (Para 43, 44, 45)
Facts of the case:
These appeals are by tenants of different residential and non-residential buildings in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and urban areas in the State of Punjab, who have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and its extension to the Union Territory of Chandigarh by the Central Government vide Notification dated 09.10.2009 in exercise of powers under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.
Finding of the Court:
Section 13-B is not ultra vires Article 14.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The afore-captioned appeals are by tenants of different residential and non-residential buildings in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and urban areas in the State of Punjab, who have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the ‘Rent Act’) and its extension to the Union Territory of Chandigarh by the Central Government vide Notification dated 09.10.2009 in exercise of powers under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (for short, the ‘Reorganisation Act’).
3. Section 13-B of the Rent Act, reads as under:
“13-B. Right to recover immediate possession of residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building to accrue to Non-resident Indian.— (1) Where an owner is a Non-Resident Indian and returns to India and the residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building, as the case may be, let out by him or her, is required for his or her use, or for the use of any one ordinarily living with and dependent on him or her, he or she, may apply to the Controller for immediate possession of such building or buildings, as the case may be:
Provided that a right to apply in respect of such a building under this Section, shall be available only after a period of five years from the date of becoming the owner of such a building and shall be available only once during the life time of such an owner.
(2) Where the owner referred to in sub-section (1), has let out more than one residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building, it shall be open to him or her to make an application under that subsection in respect of only one residential building or one scheduled building and/or one non-residential building, each chosen by him or her.
(3) Where an owner recovers possession of a building under this Section, he or she shall not transfer it through sale or any other means or let it out before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building, failing which, the evicted tenant may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored the possession of the said building and the Controller shall make an order accordingly."
The expression ‘Non-Resident Indian’ has been defined in clause (dd) to Section 2 of the Rent Act and reads:
“(dd) "Non-resident Indian" means a person of Indian origin, who is either permanently or temporarily settled outside India in either case –
(a) for or on taking up employment outside India; or
(b) for carrying on a business or vocation outside India; or
(c) for any other purpose, in such circumstances, as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period;”
Section 13-B of the Rent Act gives a right to Non-Resident Indians to recover immediate possession of residential/scheduled/non-residential buildings situated in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and urban areas in the State of Punjab on the satisfaction of the conditions stated. We shall elaborate the provisions subsequently and would first refer to the legislative history and procedure adopted for enforcement of the challenged provisions in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
4. In 1956, the unified State of Punjab was created by merging the erstwhile States of Pepsu and Punjab. In 1966, a new State of Haryana was created and carved out of certain territories from the State of Punjab. Certain hill areas of Punjab were merged in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. A new Union Territory of Chandigarh was created and became the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana. The Reorganisation Act, that is, the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 gave effect to the proposals vide provisions relating to the delimitation of territories. Another important aspect of the Reorganisation Act dealt with the applicability of laws in territories that had undergone reorganisation. This was effected by Part X of the Reo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
